3 ms·
As a software author, the first alternative doesn't sound very attractive to me. Because as an author, I will want the upstream version of libxyz, and if the d
by hibbelig 5y ago
As a software author, the first alternative doesn't sound very attractive to me. Because as an author, I will want the upstream version of libxyz, and if the distribution provides security updates past the upstream date, this means that I need to use that exact distribution to benefit.
And vendoring in is pretty much equivalent to what happens with static linking.
My parent had suggested that dynamic linking is some great solution, and I don't see it's that great.
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago> Because as an author, I will want the upstream version of libxyz Why would that be true in general? It would only be the case if the upstream version contains some feature you need that isn't present in the version packaged by the distribution, and then you would only need to do it until the next version of the distribution packages the newer library version. > and if the distribution provides security updates past the upstream date, this means that I need to use that exact distribution to benefit. Or support the multiple versions of the library, which for non-ridiculous libraries is often no more than refraining from using the features not present in the older versions.
- hibbelig 5y ago>> Because as an author, I will want the upstream version of libxyz > Why would that be true in general? Because I want to write software that works on various Unices, not just one Linux distribution. So it seems safer to rely on software that my users (the people who install the software I wrote) will be able to install from source, if necessary. If I were to require whatever version Debian had at the moment, then I'd leave Fedora, Arch, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Illumos aficionados in the lurch.